Arkansas Southern Railway Co. v. German National Bank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; James S. STEEL, Judge, on Exchange of Circuits; 1. Delivery by the railroad company to the compress company designated by the shipper in the bills of lading was a complete compliance with the contract, and released it from further. •liability. 29 Wis. 611; 2 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; James S. STEEL, Judge, on Exchange of Circuits; 1. Delivery by the railroad company to the compress company designated by the shipper in the bills of lading was a complete compliance with the contract, and released it from further. •liability. 29 Wis. 611; 2 Am. Rep. 577; 45 Barb. 502; in Mass. 163; 9 Barb. 158; 14 Wall. 98; 16 N. Y. 515 ; 48 111. 425; 77 Ga. 376. If freight is not called for at destination within a reasonable time, the carrier may deliver it to a warehouse and relieve itself of further liability. 39 Ark. 487; 1 Denio, 45; 43 Am. Dec. 649; 45…
1Dissent
McCurroch, J.,
(dissenting.) I do not agree with the majority of the court in holding that the liability of the railway company for the loss of the cotton is established by undisputed evidence, and that the trial court was correct in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. The cotton was consigned to the shipper’s order, care of the compress compaany at El Dorado. The railway company complied with the contract by delivering it to the compress company. The language of the contract was, in effect, a selection in advance by the, consignee of a place of delivery and a designation of an agent to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fisk v. NewtonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Ala. & Tenn. Rivers Railroad v. KiddSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Merchants' Dispatch Transportation Co. v. HallockIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Green & Barren River Navigation Co. v. MarshallIndiana Supreme Court · 1874